awareness of time is probably the most significant difference - but then it appears that some animals are aware of time, and some humans are not.

Animals certainly have culture and the ability to adapt socially to new situations, as well as show maladaptive behaviours in the same way humans do.

Yes. Thats true. But isn't it also true that we can't possibly live outside of a state of nature?


Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

The perception that we are somehow 'outside nature' is the major factor contributing to the impending environmental crisis.

And it won't be the first time in history.

That is my feeling as well.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

Are you comparing them to the Europeans at the time of the invasion or to Europeans of today?
If the former, the same could be said of North American natives, though I'd say that those who practiced the limited corn/beans/squash agriculture lived better lives than the strict hunter/gathers in the north.
I suspect that the relatively mild nature of diseases in the Americas (and especially in Austraila) contributed significantly to the difference in life-spans.

But either way, I would call the lives of pretty much everyone at that time short and uncomfortable by todays standards.
But even they were better off than they would have been if they hadn't actively worked to cultivate their environment, either by limited planting or at least by using fire to increase the numbers and ease of access to their favored meat animals.

The plains indians lived quite long and were quite healthy, even by todays standards. And markedly better than they live today.

What is 'todays standards' anyway? At least half of the people on the planet, and probably more, live in miserable conditions. And by sheer numbers there is far more people living in abject poverty today than at any time in human history.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

I've become wary of comparisons with Plains Indians. It's too easy for me to get caught up in thinking of them as horse-riding, nomadic hunters; something they only became for that brief, but exciting, period between the (re)introduction of horses and the spread of European disease. And even then most of them depended on trade with agricultural village-based Indians.

That's true. I suppose I was actually thinking of "my standards", which is to say, middle class East coast American standards. And I can confidently say I wouldn't exchange my current quality-of-life for any position in pre-European native society. But then, I probably wouldn't exchange it for 75% of other people's lives in the world today either.

Im more impressed by their earlier life as agriculturalists. They were not as dependent and locked to it as we are. They were able to shift, with the introduction of the horse, to a hunter and gatherer with relative ease. For us it would be a disaster, since we have made it impossible for the majority of us to survive 'off the land' or at the 'hands of the gods'. Their economy not only had a built in cultural respect for the land, but it also kept their numbers down to a reasonable level.


But your quality of life could still be improved. And i bet you would exchange it for something even better.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

Oh, no doubt. I'm actively working on such improvements, in fact

lifestyle was a major factor. sedentary concentrations of large populations with poor sanitation led to problems with pestilence and associated health problems. living in cities was a real bummer until we had modern sanitation and transport systems, or unless one could afford to pay others to cart water and dispose of waste.

diet was a also major factor.


I don't have data on longevity - but certainly the average life span of nomads here was not too bad. Possibly better than it is today in some communities.

nomads here had fire. the Tasmanians didn't.

The use of fire has long been believed to have been a strategy to increase hunting success, by creating grazing environments. There are some who are now arguing that these fire strategies may however have had a negative impact, and caused a population crash.

Hunter gatherers have amazing knowledge, and follow the food so to speak. in SW Australia they had six seasons, and knew exactly when to move on to the next major food source.

Meat is overrated. Most cultures live on relatively small amounts of meat. For aboriginal australians it was around 15% of the diet.

the REAL difference was grain. the higher carbohydrate diet made some really massive changes.

These included earlier onset of menarche - which meant childbearing years were extended, and the introduction of soft mushy grain based foods which allowed partial and earlier weaning - which also affected fertility rates. Livestock in many sedentary cultures is primarily useful for producing milk/dairy products as a source of protein, where others are available and killed sparingly. It can also be used to produce fuel (cattle dung).

I have spent time in several more traditional cultures, and quite frankly I was amazed at how old some of the old people were, including women who had borne 10 - 15 children.

Until the fifties we weren't really doing all that well compared to many of these cultures. Maternal death rates were not better than many more primitive cultures until around then. Often the thing that caused early death was infection (breaking a leg for example would most likely have been a death sentence if infection set in). Although its amazing what people did know. I know a story of a village woman making a poultice with mouldy bread to cure an infected wound, and flies can clean wounds.

If we look at what kills people, its conflict, poor sanitation, lack of clean water, poor food options, and lack of BASIC medical care.

its not access to excessive quantities of Amazon destroying beef, lack of plasma TV's, lack of gas guzzling SUVs, lack of the things we now regard as essential to modern life.

We often over rate how well we are doing relative to more traditional cultures which have experienced stability and good food supplies.

I will point out that many Native Alaska tribes, for example here I will use the Yupik's which traditionally inhabited the western coast of Alaska, lived in a state of nature completely until about 120 years ago. They were more or less just another member of the proverbial food chain. Many residents of rural Alaska live a modern subsistence way. For instance I have a house, and all the modern amenities, but my food source is about %90 of things that I have hunted, gathered, fished myself.
Regardless, the Yupik's relied on the annual salmon run and marine life for thier food sources, along with some land based mammals and birds for thier staples. They were not agriculture based, used spears, had very primitive boats and the houses they had were largely holes dug. They made little signifigant change to thier surroundings.

Climate no doubt would have been a major factor that reduced the likelihood of the establishment of a true agricultural society (although I suspect small scale horticulture in summer months?) This probably would have contributed to a relatively stable population over the longer term as well.

I have read a fair bit about the Inuit - who despite hardship appeared to have quality of life and sense of community that was very strong.

Nevertheless, certainly modern conveniences, including improved methods of hunting, fishing, access to a wider variety of food, education and health options is positive, but how heavy an ecological footprint is really needed to have a decent quality of life?

Also Bunz - have the Yupik lost anything over the last 120 years? ie - has the transition to modernity had negative impacts?

Firstly, I am not a scholar on the subject. I am half Athabaskan native. A tribe from the central interior of Alaska. But I live now in an area that is largely and traditional inhabited by Yupiks. But for purposes of discussion here, I will put on my Yupik Hat.
From everything that I have read or heard, horticulture was not practiced, until Westerners showed up as permanent residents 100 years ago. Before then it was seasonal traders, fishermen, and a few permanent missionaries. Before then it was largely a nomdic hunter-gatherer exsistance. Plant material was collected and consumed. Especially berries. Also wild vegtables such as celery and potatos were collected when they came across them. But planting seeds in a static area which were then nurtured to maturity for human consumption, didnt happen on any scale that I have found. Someone might tell you different, but that is as far as I know.
Well that depends on who you ask. I would say it is mixed, but will give as objective breakdown as I can.
I would say yes in very signifigant ways. Alcohol has been very detrimental to individuals, families and the culture as a whole.
The introduction of Western values has also been difficult on families.
Subsistence through modern means is still widely practiced by many people. Salmon fishing, hunting, egg collecting and berry picking are still a large part of many people's lives, but modern tecniques are used. Rifles, fishing nets, motorized vehicles etc. Unfortunatly there are large portions of the population who cannot afford the necessary tools to participate as well.
Economic development is still a struggle. There was a time when many families had commercial salmon permits that could provide adequate finances, but many of these have been sold to non-native people do to a downturn in our salmon fishery over the last 15 years or so.

Then there are currently outside threats to subsistence activities. For instance near Lake Iliamna there is a proposed mine known as Pebble Mine. It would be the largest copper and gold mine in North America. It is meeting with considerable opposition due to the negative impact it could have on the watersheds concerned. I happen to live downstream for Pebble and am deathly afraid of the idea of it. Having seen other mines and the impact they have had on surrounding rivers, it could seriously damage the Nushagak river which has among the largest salmon runs in the world. Upwards of 6million fish returning annually, of all 5 salmon species. Right now, the Nushagak river has no industrial polution associated with it. Having a pit mine using a cyanide leaching strategy at the head waters of my home river is unthinkable for many people here.
All that being said, Alaska Natives have probably been treated better than the lower 48 tribes. They were not relegated to reservations. They have regional corporations, and considerable control over the land granted...well not taken away from them.
Also the introduction of western foods has had a negative impact with rates of diabetes exceptionally high, among other things.

What does the philosophical concept of "state of nature" have to do with "noble savage?"
What constitutes "noble?" This can be subjective.

So far as studying the Amish as a means "for creating a better society," what constitutes "better" is subjective.

If by "better" one means emphasis on scientific and technological advancement, then the Amish would not be the "best" example for that. If by "better" one means not to emphasize scientific and technological advancement, then the Amish might be an example but possilbly not the "best" example.

Heya,

Define a state of nature. The universe is nature and there are infinite conditions found therein. There is a tendency in modern human culture to define natural as something that exist outside of something else. What is to define nature as opposed to how we live today?

I always find the concept of what each person defines as nature to be fascinating.


Love and KIsses,
Dee

__________________

It appears that mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent inherent in every atom. The universe as a whole is also weird, with laws of nature that make it hospitable to the growth of mind. I do not make any clear distinction between mind and God. God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension. ~ Freeman Dyson